Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction

References

• Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2003) “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 118(1):73–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bar-Isaac H, Caruana G, Cuñat V (2010) Information gathering and marketing. J. Econom. Management Strategy 19(2):375–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler R (2002) How much is investor autonomy worth? J. Finance 57(4):1593–1616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Karlan DS, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zinman J (2005) What’s psychology worth? A field experiment in the consumer credit market. Working paper, University of Chicago, Chicago.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW (1998) Constructive consumer choice processes. J. Consumer Res. 25(3):187–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boatwright P, Nunes JC (2001) Reducing assortment: An attribute-based approach. J. Marketing 65(3):50–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernev A (2003) Product assortment and individual decision processes. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 85(1):151–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, Malmendier U (2004) Contract design and self-control: Theory and evidence. Quart. J. Econom. 119(2):353–402.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Simonson I (2003) The effect of forced choice on choice. J. Marketing Res. 40(2):146–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Nowlis SM, Sherman SJ (2000) Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. J. Consumer Psych. 9(4):189–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ergin H, Sarver T (2010) A unique costly contemplation representation. Econometria 78(4):1285–1339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Levine DK (2006) A dual-self model of impulse control. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1449–1476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Levine DK, Maniadis Z (2012) On the robustness of anchoring effects in WTP and WTA experiments. Amer. Econom. J.: Microeconom. 4(2):131–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gabaix X, Laibson D (2006) Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Quart. J. Econom. 121(2):505–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gul F, Pesendorfer W (2001) Temptation and self-control. Econometrica 69(6):1403–1435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L (2015) Inequity aversion and fair selling. J. Marketing Res. 52(1):77–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L, Hong LJ (2013) Rational anchoring in economic valuations. Working paper, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L, Zhang J (2012) Consumer deliberation and product line design. Marketing Sci. 31(6):995–1007.Link, Google Scholar
• Hauser JR, Wernerfelt B (1990) An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. J. Consumer Res. 16(4):393–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B (2008) Competition and price variation when consumers are loss averse. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(4):1245–1268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. 9(1):90–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Irons B, Hepburn C (2007) Regret theory and the tyranny of choice. Econom. Record 83(261):191–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 79(6):995–1006.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar SS, Huberman G, Jiang W (2004) How much choice is too much? Contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Mitchell OS, Utkus S, eds. Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK),83–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacoby J, Speller DE, Kohn CA (1974) Brand choice behavior as a function of information load. J. Marketing Res. 11(1):63–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, Values, and Frames (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalai G, Rubinstein A, Spiegler R (2002) Rationalizing choice functions by multiple rationales. Econometrica 70(6):2481–2488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamenica E (2008) Contextual inference in markets: On the informational content of product lines. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(5):2127–2149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004) Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J. Marketing Res. 41(3):237–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuksov D, Villas-Boas JM (2010) When more alternatives lead to less choice. Marketing Sci. 29(3):507–524.Link, Google Scholar
• Lehmann DR, Pan Y (1994) Context effects, new brand entry, and consideration sets. J. Marketing Res. 31(3):364–374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006) The Construction of Preference (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orhun AY (2009) Optimal product line design when consumers exhibit choice set-dependent preferences. Marketing Sci. 28(5):868–886.Link, Google Scholar
• Pocheptsova A, Amir O, Dhar R, Baumeister RF (2009) Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and choice in context. J. Marketing Res. 46(3):344–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D, Wernerfelt B, Zettelmeyer F (1997) The role of inference in context effects: Inferring what you want from what is available. J. Consumer Res. 24(1):118–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sarver T (2008) Anticipating regret: Why fewer options may be better. Econometrica 76(2):263–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scheibehenne B, Greifeneder R, Todd PM (2010) Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. J. Consumer Res. 37(3):409–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz B (2004) The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (Harper Collins, New York).Google Scholar
• Schwartz B, Ward A, Monterosso J, Lyubomirsky S, White K, Lehman DR (2002) Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 83(5):1178–1197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shugan SM (1980) The cost of thinking. J. Consumer Res. 7(2):99–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I (1989) Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consumer Res. 16(2):158–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I (2008) Will I like a “medium” pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. J. Consumer Psych. 18(3):155–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I, Nowlis SM (2000) The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. J. Consumer Res. 27(1):49–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I, Tversky A (1992) Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Marketing Res. 29(3):281–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Amer. Psychologist 50(5):364–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith GE, Nagle TT (1995) Frames of reference and buyers’ perception of price and value. Calif. Management Rev. 38(1):98–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Syam N, Krishnamurthy P, Hess JD (2008) That’s what I thought I wanted? Miswanting and regret for a standard good in a mass-customized world. Marketing Sci. 27(3):379–397.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. 95(3):371–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas JM (2009) Product variety and endogenous pricing with evaluation costs. Management Sci. 55(8):1338–1346.Link, Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt B (1995) A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: Using market data to infer utilities. J. Consumer Res. 21(4):627–633.Crossref, Google Scholar